Dude, you should atleast segregate your posts a bit so that I may understand which parts are addressed to me.
The choices we make depend on our knowledge at the time - including the knowledge of the expected consequences of our choices. The certain knowledge of those consequences would form a part of whole knowledge and therefore be a factor. We can choose to ignore that factor, like the Trojans did in Cassandra's case, but it would be a factor nevertheless.
To my knowledge, the question is still undecided (regarding the conventional definition of free will), because the known set of deterministic forces have been causally insufficient. In that sense, the commonly defined free-will is sort of "god-of-the-gaps" used to fill the absence of knowledge about the unknown factors.
Isn't that kind of all it could be?
Is it strange? We reevaluate and redefine old concepts in light of new knowledge all the time.
(March 15, 2012 at 8:42 am)Rhythm Wrote: I'm not sure, btw Genk, why knowledge of the future would automatically become one of the factors which led to a future state, I am immediately reminded of the Greek story of Cassandra.
The choices we make depend on our knowledge at the time - including the knowledge of the expected consequences of our choices. The certain knowledge of those consequences would form a part of whole knowledge and therefore be a factor. We can choose to ignore that factor, like the Trojans did in Cassandra's case, but it would be a factor nevertheless.
(March 15, 2012 at 8:42 am)Rhythm Wrote: I see many reasons for precluding the notion of it's existence (possibility and actuality are entirely different things, agreed?) one of which being the lack of a specific answer but more importantly, I haven't been able to find even a general answer, but chiefly, that it cannot be demonstrated to exist, and that many of the things attributed to it can be shown to occur elsewhere, through a mechanism and process which would seem to imply the polar opposite of "free will".
To my knowledge, the question is still undecided (regarding the conventional definition of free will), because the known set of deterministic forces have been causally insufficient. In that sense, the commonly defined free-will is sort of "god-of-the-gaps" used to fill the absence of knowledge about the unknown factors.
(March 15, 2012 at 8:42 am)Rhythm Wrote: In the end, if all that is required to point to a free will is to say that we make choices, whatever "we" means, or that we are an agent, whatever "agent" means, and this underpins those things you mentioned, such as responsibility, then that's good enough for me as far as those things are concerned (but only as far as they are concerned). The concept only needs to work as far as our experience here is concerned to be treated as a concept.
Isn't that kind of all it could be?
(March 15, 2012 at 8:42 am)Rhythm Wrote: It is strange though, to see us so desperately attempting to pigeon-hole a preconceived notion like "free will" into a better understanding of what goes into our minds than it was conceived under.
Is it strange? We reevaluate and redefine old concepts in light of new knowledge all the time.
